Coppotelli v. Brewer Yacht Yard

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Coppotelli v. Brewer Yacht Yard

603 A.2d 340, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 227, 1992 WL 47399

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 13, 1992

DocketNos. 91-312-Appeal, 91-318-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 603 A.2d 340 (Coppotelli v. Brewer Yacht Yard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coppotelli v. Brewer Yacht Yard, 603 A.2d 340, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 227, 1992 WL 47399 (R.I. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[341]*341ORDER

These consolidated matters were before this court pursuant to an order issued to the plaintiff to appear and show cause why the issues raised in these appeals should not be summarily resolved. In this case the plaintiff had appealed from the dismissal of one complaint and the entry of summary judgment on another complaint. After reviewing memoranda submitted by both parties and consideration of arguments of counsel, it is the conclusion of this court that Coppotelli’s appeals should be sustained.

The record indicates that defendant DeS-tefano, for whom process had been returned “non est inventus,” remains out of this court’s jurisdiction. DeStefano’s absence effectively tolls the applicable statute of limitations within our understanding of G.L.1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 27-7-2, which provides for remedies against an insurer. Accordingly, the plaintiffs appeal is sustained. The judgment appealed from is reversed and the record in the case is remanded to the Superior Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[341]*341ORDER

These consolidated matters were before this court pursuant to an order issued to the plaintiff to appear and show cause why the issues raised in these appeals should not be summarily resolved. In this case the plaintiff had appealed from the dismissal of one complaint and the entry of summary judgment on another complaint. After reviewing memoranda submitted by both parties and consideration of arguments of counsel, it is the conclusion of this court that Coppotelli’s appeals should be sustained.

The record indicates that defendant DeS-tefano, for whom process had been returned “non est inventus,” remains out of this court’s jurisdiction. DeStefano’s absence effectively tolls the applicable statute of limitations within our understanding of G.L.1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 27-7-2, which provides for remedies against an insurer. Accordingly, the plaintiffs appeal is sustained. The judgment appealed from is reversed and the record in the case is remanded to the Superior Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

603 A.2d 340, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 227, 1992 WL 47399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coppotelli-v-brewer-yacht-yard-ri-1992.